Justice 1 Committee, 11 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 11, 2002

Official Report 238KB pdf

---

Prison Estates Review

I did not make it to Glenochil prison, but Donald Gorrie, Maureen Macmillan and Michael Matheson did. One of them will provide an oral report on the visit. We have until 2.15. I am also going to ask Paul Martin to give an oral report on the Audit Committee's consideration of the Scottish Prison Service's accounts. I want that to happen in the same time slot, so I ask whoever is to provide the report on Glenochil to keep within the time—the members who were on the visit are looking at each other affectionately.

It was a long time ago. I was impressed by the senior staff. I think that the top two jobs were held by ladies. Is that correct?

Yes.

They seem to have improved the situation, which was not too good previously. One obvious difficulty is faced by people who try to get to the prison, because the public transport is abysmal. That is relevant to the argument about siting another prison there. The prison does its best for visitors, but it is difficult to get there. The prison tries to deal conscientiously with those sex offenders who refuse to co-operate with the regime, and who are therefore not sent to Peterhead prison or who are sent away from Peterhead.

The staff were uncertain about what would happen to them under the various options of the prison review. That had affected staff confidence a bit. On the whole, the prisoners had no burning complaints to bring to the committee's attention. The prison is peculiar in that it has young offenders, sex offenders and ordinary prisoners—if that is the right expression—but it tackles the problems quite well.

I ask Michael Matheson to add a short comment.

I will talk about the young offenders who are also based at the prison. Working with both groups of prisoners presents the prison with a challenge and with some difficulties in staffing and other matters. For example, the prison has difficulty in maintaining security in an area that is meant to be secure—I do not remember its name, but I think that it was called a clear area. That is because the Young Offenders Institution building is being used and because visitors must cross a yard.

Recently, there was a serious disturbance in the young offenders institution. Some damage from that was still being repaired when we visited. The toilets had only recently been completed, so parts of the building were not in use. The general prison was fine, but the YOI requires considerable upgrading. There are serious questions about whether a young offenders institution should be, in effect, in an adult long-term prison establishment.

It will be interesting to raise those issues with Clive Fairweather.

I am sorry, Paul, that your report has been deferred often. Is your memory of the Scottish Prison Service's accounts still clear?

The discussion took place some time ago.

The Audit Committee undertook a fiercely technical accounting exercise, particularly in relation to how SPS assets are presented. For example, the Scottish Executive was shown to be the owner of the Kilmarnock project. We interrogated Dr Collings to clarify that issue.

During evidence that we took, I raised insurance issues. Dr Collings made it clear that the company was responsible for insurance for a period and that if there were any risk to prisoners from fire or any other incident, the company would relocate prisoners.

I asked Dr Collings about tax liability and whether there were tax implications for companies that did not show a prison as an asset. He said that he would write to us about that and I am not sure whether the Audit Committee has received a response. He understood that there were no tax implications. He thought that there would be no tax implications if, for example, Premier Prison Services Ltd did not show the asset in its accounts.

The need for consistent presentation of accounts was clear to the committee. We have touched on that issue. That would require a protocol between the Scottish Executive and Westminster on the way in which accounts are presented.

As members will realise, a highly technical accounting exercise was undertaken and the Audit Committee interrogated fiercely on many issues. Several responses were to be received later from the senior civil servant who gave evidence.

Will the Audit Committee produce a formal report on that?

I am not sure. The committee will probably reach conclusions on how it will deal with the accounts. I do not know whether it will note that later.

When will that happen? Obviously, what the Audit Committee is considering has some impact on our report on the prison estates review.

We took evidence not only on the accounts of the Scottish Prison Service but on those of Scottish Natural Heritage and of Communities Scotland. The Audit Committee goes through that technical exercise each year. As I have not attended some Audit Committee meetings, I have lost track of whether we will produce a single report on the accounts of the SPS or whether one report will cover the accounts of all the organisations collectively.

If our committee is to have a debate in the chamber on our report, it would be useful to have the Official Report of that meeting of the Audit Committee so that it could become part of our debate.